A colleague of mine and I were discussing the fact that oftentimes EFL students, in this case Gulf Arabic speakers, appear well-equipped to deliver essays demonstrating the pros and cons of a topic, but in many cases lack the ability to effectively argue through their contention. This prompted me to consider through-argumentation versus counterargumentation, an area of rhetoric I studied while enrolled in an English/Arabic/English translation and interpreting program at the American University of Sharjah. (Note: I often find useful connections between TESL, rhetoric, and translation and interpreting studies.)

Reflecting on the concept of through-argumentation versus counterargumentation may hold some interest for ESL/EFL instructors of writing. In discussing the notion of through-argumentation and the challenges this area poses for translation from Arabic into English, Hatim (2004) observed a current shift in Arabic away from residual orality toward more literate practices, terms that Hatim is quick to dismiss as “labels” when he explains:

While the counter-argumentative format has always been “available” (Arabs have known counter-argumentation since the dawn of history), this particular form is conspicuous by its absence as a commonly used textual resource in every day [sic] interaction. This is in contrast to narration and its argumentative counterpart (through-argumentation), which have always been readily available and heavily used). (p. 7)

Through-argumentation in Arabic discourse may be characterized by a cumulative buildup of evidence and repetition to prove unequivocally a particular point, while counterargumentation is virtually nonexistent. As Hatim and Mason (1997) explained, counterargumentation, which is common in academic English, involves two protagonists confronting each other. There is the absent protagonist, who has his or her “thesis cited to be evaluated,” and a present protagonist “performing the function of orchestrating the debate and steering the receiver in a particular direction” (p. 7). Hatim (2004) continued by explaining the implications of what he calls “residual orality”:

The empathetic and involved rather than objectively distanced and dialogic attitude to language use is typical of through-argumentation (as opposed to counter-argumentation). . . . (p. 9)

In relation to translation, Hatim (2004) summed up the difficulty in translating residual orality when he described the awkwardness found in fairly literal translations of Arabic editorials. This awkwardness comes from, as he says,

a tendency on the part of the source text producer . . . to make argumentative claims linguistically “present” by calling attention to them, repeating them and insisting on their salience (excessive pathos) rather than appealing to their logos. . . . (p. 13)

Sa'deddin (1989) similarly stated of the aural mode, in contrasting it to the visual mode in Arabic:

To an English reader, this might be perceived not without reason as trespassing, presumptive, illiterate, haranguing and breathing down the neck of the audience. (p. 44)

The absent protagonist serves the critical purpose of conveying background on the subject, placing the argument within an informed context, and preparing the ground for the writer’s own counterargument and perspective. Couching an argument in this way serves several purposes, which may be summed up by the seven criteria for effective communicative discourse as put forward by Beaugrande and Dressler (1981):

1. Cohesion: a surface text that is connected
2. Coherence: underlying text relevance
3. Intentionality: the producer’s attitude toward the text
4. Acceptability: the receiver’s attitude toward the text
5. Informativity: the extent to which communicative occurrences are expected versus unexpected or known versus unknown
6. Situationality: a text’s relativeness to situation
7. Intertextuality: a text’s dependency on previously encountered knowledge.

Beaugrande and Dressler suggested that if one of the seven standards is defied within a text, a breakdown occurs in the communicative effectiveness. Accordingly, at least three regulative principles also control communication:

1. Efficiency: communicating with minimum effort
2. Effectiveness: leaving a strong impression and creating conditions for attaining its goals
3. Appropriateness: finding agreement between the setting and the way standards are upheld

Given the fact that through-argumentation is a common feature in Arabic texts, ESL/EFL instructors may wish to bring to the attention of ESL Arabic speakers the somewhat elusive but ever-present absent protagonist and methods for making the writer’s point of view more pronounced. On her Web site, in “How to Write an Argument Essay,” Fleming gives this advice:

Present both sides of the controversy:

The body of your essay will contain the meat of your argument. You should go into more detail about the two sides of your controversy and state the strongest points of the counter-side of your issue.

After describing the "other" side, you will present your own viewpoint and then provide evidence to show why your position is the correct one.

Select your strongest evidence and present your points one by one. Use a mix of evidence types, from statistics, to other studies and anecdotal stories. This part of your paper could be any length, from two paragraphs to two hundred pages.

Re-state your position as the most sensible one in your summary paragraph.

It is important to note here, of course, the well-known fact that Arabic speakers come from a variety of educational backgrounds, both private and governmental. Many may have encountered the Arabic visual mode in school and/or may be learning English as a third language, in which case they may have already adapted to various Western discourse styles and presence of the absent protagonist. The point to be made is that since the absent protagonist is clearly of consequence to the argumentative essay, special emphasis may be required in teaching writing to ESL Arabic speakers unfamiliar with this concept or lacking a solid L1 foundation in this area.

Broader investigation of this domain, including the impact of globalization and the electronic media on changing and evolving Arabic rhetorical patterns, might provide greater insight into the writing patterns of ESL Arabic speakers and the challenges they face. Further investigation of this area might also determine the degree to which Arabic has the potential to function as a resource for Arabic ESL/EFL students, as opposed to an obstacle, as suggested by both Sa’deddin (1989) and Ayari (1992).

REFERENCES

Ayari, S. (1992). Exploring the Role of NL in L2 Writing: Evidence from Arabic Learners of English. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Minnesota.

Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.

Hatim, B. (2004) Shedding residual orality: The case of Arabic. Unpublished manuscript.

Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.

Sa'deddin, M. A. (1989). Text development and Arabic-English negative interference. Applied Linguistics, 10/1, 36-51

Ann Ainlay Chebbo, achebbo@sharjah.ac.ae, holds a BS degree in languages (Arabic) and linguistics from Georgetown University, an MEd in TESOL from Boston University, and an MA in English/Arabic/English translation and interpreting from the American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates. She is a currently a translator (seconded faculty member) in the Office of the Chancellor at the University of Sharjah in the UAE, where she also directed the Intensive English Program from 2006 to 2008.